I rather preferred the, "No goats, no glory", which(based on the flick) I found hilarious(KUDOS, Geoff). Sometimes I feel as though I’m stuck on the Antelope Freeway, being forced to listen to 24 hours of the Barney and Friends theme song, wishing for an All Weather Climate Control, when reading these....whatevers. Then again, no one compels me to visit(save the invitations, not to). Back to audio, or the other side of the record? Have fun!
Beware the audio guru
There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil." Those who disagree are accused of being "deluded," or suffering some insurmountable bias, or attempting to further some commercial agenda. On occasion, they have taunted detractors with an appeal that they engage in a wager - one guy wanted $25,000 cash up front and an agreement drafted by lawyers. Another offered 5-to-1 odds.
I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.
A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.
These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.
A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.
These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
Showing 17 responses by rodman99999
@teo_audio - I can’t help but reply. Based on you post, the principles, discoveries and the very scientific process itself, would have to be thrown out, or- considered, "dangerous", because the following believed in a supreme being(though, as previously noted, I don’t necessarily agree with their theology). I’ve made it easy on anyone that’s actually interested in learning where some of the foundational doctrines, regarding Physics, Atomic Theory, Electrical Theory, electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, etc(and even the vacuum tube), originated(I can’t help but think/hope you’re out there). Just click on the names, if you don’t recognize them, and/or their contributions to SCIENCE, in their various fields:
|
@prof- As I mentioned before(while venting), " Whatever piques my interest: I’ll watch, listen, taste, touch, or smell it for myself, thank you." It seems, I’m not alone and find myself in good company(on and off, over the centuries). ie: https://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/max-planck-on-god/ (albeit, only a list of, "Christian" scientists AND- not that I particularly agree with their individual theologies): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology It’s harder to tell, what(exactly) the many Jewish scientists(especially the plethora of physicists), have actually believed. I Do know it’s VERY hard, to separate a Jew, from their religion(.2% of the world’s population/22.5% of awarded Nobels- DISPORPORTIONATE?). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_scientists Thankfully, The Manhattan Project had a few AND(very possibly), Heisenberg sabotaged the Nazi’s atomic aspirations. Indeed: too bad there’s no lounge. |
@prof - Had you bothered to read the follow-up post(then again, perhaps you did and it didn’t register), those words were a verbatim quote, from a very well regarded physicist, Nobel laureate and lecturer’s book. That’s why I postscripted the statement with, "Sound familiar to anyone?" In case you’re unable to find that post and the reference: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pleasure-of-finding-things-out-richard-phillips-feynman/1102811398 Perhaps your audio guru can help you with your situational awareness. Happy listening! |
@teo_audio- A couple pages back, you posted some comments that can be boiled down to(unless I’m mistaken), NEVER STOP LEARNING. Here’s a book that might interest you(et al), being very inspirational, in that regard: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/pleasure-of-finding-things-out-richard-phillips-feynman/1102811398 The above(regarding Science/religion) was quoted(verbatum) from it’s pages. Also: "It is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding, we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely."(Though it’s been decades, since these words were written, to my knowledge, they still hold true.) His thought continues: "That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty… Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth." |
Science and religion? The typical human problem, and one whose answer religion aims to supply, is always of the following form: Should I do this? Should we do this? Should the government do this? To answer this question we can resolve it into two parts: First: If I do this, what will happen? And second: Do I want that to happen? What would come of it of value...of good? Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question, any question, philosophical or other, which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment, is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science. I claim that whether you want something to happen or not: what value there is in the result, and how you judge the value of the result (which is the other end of the question: Should I do this?), must lie outside of science because it is not a question that you can answer only by knowing what happens; you still have to judge what happens, in a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view, or the ethical aspect of religion, and scientific information. Sound familiar, to anyone? |
@erik_squires - I was asking, based of the classical definition(but not seriously, anyway) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy |
Just needing to vent: If you don’t like it, don’t believe it can work, haven’t tried it, or can’t measure why it sounds like that(whatever the, "it" might be): DON’T tell me I can’t trust the ears that have kept me alive(in a number of scenarios), and allowed me to enhance the listening enjoyment and performances of a number of grateful music listeners and musicians, in a number of venues(home/hall/etc), while making a living(over a few decades). Not to mention: the countless hours of relaxation and enjoyment, that they(and music) have provided. I’ve tested and trust them WAY MORE than your opinions/beliefs! Your tastes and senses are not mine, and I refuse to miss anything, based on whatever narrow road you may be traveling(whoever you are). Whatever piques my interest: I’ll watch, listen, taste, touch, or smell it for myself, thank you. Happy listening! |
MENSA? Regarding Grammar: One would think, with such a high(proclaimed) IQ, such would(at least) be familiar with the proper use of reflexive pronouns(ie: "myself") https://www.grammarly.com/blog/reflexive-pronouns/ I will, however, admit that I completely agreed with The Tweak’s first response(in this thread/Grammar not withstanding). |
The Tweak doth protest too much, methinks. (overly loquacious) For all that posturing: https://code.tutsplus.com/articles/do-you-suffer-from-the-dunning-kruger-effect--net-22227 |